Difference of Six Sigma quality approach

Conventional method of improving the quality is to spend money on additional quality control steps, audit processes and extensive testing processes to improve on the quality. For Six Sigma, it is about do it right the first time where quality are built in the process.

In Six Sigma context, the goal is to target for zero costs of failure (internal or external), and minimal preventative and appraisal costs. Six Sigma processes should be self-regulating as preventative measures should be built into the processes.

The benefit of building failure stop-points into a process include:

• Earlier detection when errors do occur, which keeps hidden costs down.
• When quality is something employees have ownership of, they are more likely to work hard to create the best possible output.
• In-process quality assurance is actually more effective than post-process or over-process prevention and appraisal methods.

How to prevent unnecessary quality steps in the process

When designing a Six Sigma processes, the way to identify unnecessary form of prevention or appraisal is to ask the following questions:

• Does the activity itself add any value to the output?
• If the activity is designed to prevent defects within the process, can the activity be made more efficient?
• If the activity is designed to prevent defects, can the activity be made less expensive?
• If an activity is designed to capture quality data about the process for reporting purposes, are those reports necessary?
• If quality reports are necessary- either because of obligatory requirements such as compliance or because the reports provide value in another process – can the reports be automated to reduce associated expense?